Skip to main content
3:30 pm
about. a previous speaker talked about there was a lot of increase in the south of market. the population increase, over 30%. we want to make sure that there's adequate analysis and thinking and really planning around the different amenities and public infrastructure that the neighborhoods need when there is population increase in the area along with traffic congestion. and also we had a lot of concern around how this is going to impact the affordable housing. we're still not convinced that this might alleviate people from not doing roommates because a lot of people does roommates because they want to keep the rents under 800. a lot of students inform us they cannot use their tuition fees or tuition things to housing. they actually still have to get a job.
3:31 pm
so, there is a need for affordable housing for families, students, seniors and everyone. therefore, that's why we worked diligently with our allies and you supervisors to ensure that we have a cap to really see and analyze that this is a need. and we really appreciate you hearing our concerns and we look forward to working with the planning staff to actually look over those analysis. thank you again and we hope to -- that you support this legislation. >> thank you. i don't have any other cards. so, if anyone after mr. cohen is interested in speaking, you can just go ahead and line up. good afternoon, supervisors. tim cohen on behalf of the housing action coalition. i'd like to support the proposed legislation for new housing product efficiency dwelling units with one important exception. we have said repeatedly that edus are a logical necessary response for badly needed new housing in an extremely expensive housing market.
3:32 pm
edus have long been common in other countries and are now starting to appear in other u.s. cities. they make perfect sense for a dense land constrained city like ours. unfortunately, the proposal is seriously undermined by the idea of a 375-unit cap on market rate edus. it's poor public policy for two reasons. first, while hack could in principle support a threshold that would trigger planning department review, it is simply not possible what could be understood from such a very, very small sample size which is really 1/10 of 1% of the city's housing stock. what conclusions would planning staff be able to reach by studying 375 units? we dispute that that's a statistically valid sample. second, the 375 unit cap sends exactly the wrong message to the market rate builders and lenders. a cap this small conveys in a fairly direct way the city does not support this type of
3:33 pm
housing, may soon close the window on it, and investors should proceed at their own peril. more generally this hyper cautious approach to new housing while common in san francisco is frustrating to our members. it is yet another example of the contradiction between the values we espouse and the policies we adopt. while as a city we claim to support housing affordability, especially for the work force and middle class families who have a long-standing tendency to adopt policies that actually result in making housing scarce and expensive, never more so than today. in conclusion, we think this is a good idea. it's long-overdue and should move forward, but we have great concerns how this cap is going to be interpreted. thank you. >> next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. i live in district 6. i really like the area i live in because it's close to a lot of parks in the city i need to go to, especially city hall to
3:34 pm
come see y'all. and i feel like, well, since it's south of market, i'm throwing the idea out there. i know you may think it's kind of silly for me to say this. but since it's going to be south of market, why don't you utilize that building on the corner of sixth and howard with all those little things on that side? you know, especially since this is going to be experimental, right? so, you know, you have a lot of old buildings anyway. just renovate that since they say it's going to cost a lot of money to do anything with that building anyway. so, sixth and howard that is an up and coming area because they're putting a police station. they have a subway. it's close to end up. it's close to -- what is that grocery store down there, whole foods or whatever it is. so, it's a very up and coming area. so, that money could be spent since it's experimental units, and the s-r-os, i don't see a difference in s-r-o and that except you have to have an id
3:35 pm
to go in an s-r-o. it's no different than an sro and what you're talking b. so, it's just an idea i'm throwing at y'all because it could be a good building, you know. thanks. >> thank you very much. next speaker. good afternoon, members of the board. peter cohan, council community housing organization. just here to support the compromise measures that's come forward. thanks, supervisor wiener, for working with the housing committee and other members of the board. it was refreshing to see the planning commission strongly support this measured approach last thursday. so, let's see how it comes out. this is an experimental new typology of housing, if you will. the importance will be to learn from what comes out of this first, if you will, pilot phase so the reporting requirements will tell us a lot. and we'll be very informative to the next steps going forward. that's feedback loop is something we want to give you detailed input on.
3:36 pm
but what's come out from this long process is now before you and the full board is a good compromise. thanks very much. >> thank you, mr. cohen. good afternoon, supervisors. congratulations, supervisor mar, for your brilliant reelection. and thank you, supervisor wiener, for bringing this up. as tim cohen said a little while ag i am concerned also. i do work a lot with the construction industry. i'm concerned if we only allow 375 units to be built, it ain't gonna happen because people -- bankers might say, you know what, this is great, but what's going to happen after this? [speaker not understood]. i'd like to say go forward but i think we really should think about expanding it. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, mr. chairman, may we close public comment? >> yes, public comment is closed.
3:37 pm
>> i want to thank everyone who came out today. i really want to particularly thank sarah short and also gail gilman from community housing partnership who wasn't here today who were very, very deeply involved in the negotiations and were really good negotiating partners in trying to work out this compromise. i also want to again thank president chiu who was also very supportive and helpful in helping all of us move to this process. i just had a couple final points. first of all, you know, i think we all -- a lot of people have it in our heads we would love for everyone to live in a single-family home or some really big spacious flat. and unfortunately that's not the reality of 2012 san francisco. very few people who are not fortunate enough to have bought or rented a large place a long
3:38 pm
time ago can afford to do that. it's just not an economic reality in san francisco and we need to be housing everyone, not just the people who are lucky enough to be able to afford or to have spent a long time living in a reasonably priced large unit. we also, as much as we all support public investment in affordable housing -- and i was a big proponent of proposition c, we're never going to have enough public affordable housing money to solve our housing affordability problem just through public investment. part of the solution, it will never be the entire solution, we have to be flexible and creative. and i also want to address i think a fallacy that's out there that we somehow don't have micro units right now. we have many, many micro units in san francisco right now and it's called roommate situation. this is referred to a little bit in public comment. how many 3 and 4 bedroom
3:39 pm
apartments do we have in san francisco where there are three, four, five, six or more roommates packed into those apartments, one or two living in a small bedroom with 3, 4, 5, 6 people sharing one bathroom, sharing one kitchen, maybe no living room converted into a bedroom. that's called a micro unit situation where you don't even have your own private bath and bedroom. this will provide people with their own living space and their own private kitchen and bathroom. i also completely agree with the point that was made that we need more family housing. we absolutely do. and we should be supporting that. but almost 40% of san francisco ans live alone as i mentioned at the beginning. and we need to be focusing on that segment of the population as well * . the two are not mutually exclusive. so, colleagues, this is a good compromise piece of legislation.
3:40 pm
although i agree with mr. cohen and with the planning commission that ideally obviously i introduced this with no cap on it and that would be my preference. but politics and legislation being the process that it is, we work together and we came up with what i think is a good compromise and i stand by that compromise. so, -- >> yeah, that came in too late. i don't think we can reopen public comment. >> okay. so, colleagues, first, mr. chairman, i'd like to move the amendments and then i would move to forward the legislation with a positive recommendation as a committee report to the full board for tomorrow. >> okay. let me first ask if supervisor kim had comments. >> first i want to address one of the comments from public comment. i just want to state that the hotel referred to on sixth and howard is slated for affordable
3:41 pm
family housing and it's already in movement. i think there was some stalling because of the dissolution of redevelopment and that's part of the -- soma redevelopment area plan. but the funding has been secured for the hotel. what slowed it down is the building is historic. we have some additional processes unfortunately. but it will be fulfilling a need in the south of market which is the need for more family housing, multi-unit housing. of course, affordable housing for families which is great. but i do just want to say as someone who has a lot of concerns about efficiency units, particularly the impact in the south of market where we already have a lot of density, and also questioning the market need for this type of unit, i do appreciate the compromise that was brokered and i just want to thank supervisor wiener and all the advocates for really coming together and putting forward a solution where we can test out this type of model of housing and see what the market demand is and kind of who inhabits this type of housing. i know it's a small amount, but i think it's a good start. so, i want to appreciate the
3:42 pm
work that went behind it. it was months and months of work. >> i want to just add also thanking supervisor wiener for working with the nine community-based organizations and affordable housing groups, also from planning and others that put a lot of work into this. i think there is a strong and firm safeguard that's really built into this compromise that allows flexibility in building more housing, but also is really sensitive looking at potential impacts and benefits of these types of smaller units. so, i'll be supportive. on the amendments, can we adopt the amendments without objection? thank you. and on the legislation itself as amended, as a committee report to the full board on november 30th, can we do that with positive recommendation without objection? thank you. thank you. thank you, supervisor wiener. thank you, everyone. mr. evans, i forgot to mention we're being broadcasted by sfgtv and the hard working
3:43 pm
staff, jessie larson and jeff rob son. i'd like to thank them. mr. evans, could you please call item number 4? >> item number 4, hearing to consider the initial project design of the proposed golden gate -- golden state warriors development on piers 30 to 32 and seawall lot 330, and update on the waterfront transportation network assessment. >> thank you. and the sponsors are supervisor jane kim and president david chiu. so, we're joined by supervisor jane kim on this item. supervisor kim. >> thank you, chair mar. thank you for agendizing this hearing today. as many of you know, last wednesday at the budget finance committee, we considered the fiscal feasibility of the pier 30-32 project which includes a potential arena with our warriors team back here in san francisco. the committee did determine that the project is fiscally feasible, but as many of you know, we do have a lot of concerns in the neighborhood as we move through this process.
3:44 pm
and, no, i called this hearing to readdress one of the current concerns that we've heard the most often regarding this project which is transportation. this hearing is the first of multiple hearings that i have requested to give the board periodic updates on the proposed golden gate warriors development project. this first hearing is just an informational hearing to consider the initial project design for the development on pier 30-32 with assessment of the transportation network very near and around pier 30-32. and i just also want to acknowledge today we do have [speaker not understood] the principal architect for this project. this hearing again gives us the opportunity to hear about one of the two top issues of concerns for constituents in the south beach rincon hill and mission bay neighborhood. the first that we occurred was transportation. this area is already a neighborhood that is quite impacted by the regular traffic of workers and commuters onto the bay bridge as well as the 2
3:45 pm
80. we have a lot of questions in terms of what this new arena -- what is really the assessed impact that we believe might occur and what types of investments do we as a city need to make to address the demands. we have some of the highest collisions between pedestrians and vehicleses in the south of market. so, how will this project impact those rates? second, we asked questions whether we can support bike infrastructure in that neighborhood to increase bike circulation so folks can bike to and [speaker not understood]. third, we have questions about what public transit investment costs are and to meet the demands of additional gains in this neighborhood. we've already seen what muni has been able to do with giants home games. so, we have already some data analysis around what that might cost with additional warriors games. and i actually just want to bring up a point that one of my colleagues brought up last week at the budget committee meeting
3:46 pm
which i had not thought of, being that i don't represent outer portions of the city, but supervisor chiu brought up when we have giants home game night, muni doesn't run all the way to the sunset. i'm sure we experience that in other outer neighborhoods here in san francisco. the last issue of course that comes up often is the issue of parking and it's participants to games or other events circling around neighborhoods and turning the neighborhood into an overall parking lot. so, we're hoping to vet some of these issues today. just give some of the information the city already has. this is the first of many hearings, but i do think this will be a very important issue for us to address as this project moves forward in order for us to have a successful project. so, i do want to welcome folks that are here today. we have jen matts who is the director of development on our southern waterfront. and i was hoping she could come up first and introduce the rest of the city family that will be
3:47 pm
presenting here today at land use committee. thank you, ms. matts. >> thank you very much, supervisor. i'm jennifer matts in the office of economic and work force development and i have the privilege of working on three major waterfront development projects currently for the city. we're really delighted to be here with you today and we have a pretty robust hearing and set of presentations. some of this information we've shared with both the cac and with the port commission, but this is the first time that we've come to you board of supervisors because these hearings are broadcast and televised, we think it will reach an even wider audience with a level of detail we haven't yet been able to communicate with the city at large. lisa pagan from our office will address issues and concerns that supervisor kim brought up. peter all bert from the mta will be discussing the transportation survey and assessment that's currently ongoing for the waterfront and how that will impact the
3:48 pm
environmental review process for this project. we have byron the director of development from the port to discuss briefly the port's waterfront land use plan which we think provides very important context for why this location is appropriate to consider an arena. and then we will have craig talk about the actual design. it's really tremendous that we have craig here to present the design himself because really no one does it justice the way he does. after that we'll just have very brief comments from two other departments, san francisco fire department and the mayor's office of disability to talk about the ways in which both fire station and fire boats can hopefully be collated at this site. and also to talk about the outreach we've begun with the mayor's office of disability when we think about the 7 acres of open space in addition to the structures that are proposed for both the seawall lot and piers 30-32. so, with that i would like to turn this over to lisa pagan. >> thanks. through the chair if i may, i did for get to bring up a
3:49 pm
second issue to bring up in the committee. i want to frame it with the perspective of the neighborhood. another concern is the quality of life issue which ms. pagan will be addressing. to give the public a sense of what we've been hearing, the concerns have been around additional crowds around the home game of the giants. there will be other nights we'll be experiencing the crowds and more trash in the neighborhood. urination is what we get complaints about, people leaving games and urinating on people's door steps. general crowd control and what that might look like if we had an arena and stadium in the neighborhood. thank you, ms. pagan, for being here. >> lisa pagan, office of economic and work force development. thank you, supervisors, chair mar. i led a workshop on november 5th with at least 60 attendees where we talked about safety,
3:50 pm
noise, and other sort of quality of life impacts that people were concerned about related to the proposed development at piers 30-32, but also what the concerns are today, the existing conditions and also their concerns about future impacts of the proposed development. -- for the facility and multi-entertainment sports facility. so, it was a really great workshop in the sense that i got a lot of information. we split into five break out groups. we had surveys, written surveys. they talked with the facilitator in the break out group. they put stickers where they think that the impacts would happen. but they also provided a lot of verbal and we had a lot of notes, feedback. right now we're going through all of that information and we're analyzing what are the main concerns, and what do people want to preserve about what they like about the neighborhood as it exists today.
3:51 pm
so, our hope is to finish analyzing the information and then we go back to the community and have some proposals how to address what they would like to see addressed. we stuck to cleanliness, safety, noise, because the transportation issues, peter all bert had a big workshop on the week before. so we didn't focus as much on public transportation and traffic, although we did touch on where traffic control might be located and needed. so, we're in the process. we haven't come up with the answers yet, but we are going to and work with the community on some strategies to address the concerns that you're talking about, cleanliness and safety and impacts of different large events happening in the neighborhood. so, if you have any other questions, i'd be happy to answer, but [speaker not
3:52 pm
understood] finish analyzing the information about the [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. peter all bert from mta. i'm going to talk about what we're doing with the waterfront transportation assessment. i'd like to actually -- first of all, i think it's really important for us in planning transportation to take that step back and do much more than just plan for one particular project. when so much is going on in the surrounding neighborhood, this idea of doing a transportation assessment was to get out ahead of what we know are three large projects that will be coming along pretty soon. we're working obviously with piers 30-32. we're aware of what is happening with mission rock. we'll be working with pier 70. it made sense for us at mta to make sure that as a stakeholder ourselves in ensuring good transportation and looking at pedestrian and bicycle and transit and traffic and parking
3:53 pm
that we also are as concerned about the quality that comes out of this. what we see is an opportunity here and i appreciate the chance to work and get ahead of this opportunity. so, the slides that i have on the powerpoint, i don't know if that's coming across -- thank you -- one of the first steps we want to do is step back and look at not just pier 30-32, but look at the bigger waterfront area. that was brought at the fisherman's wharf pier 70. to make sure that as we rollup our sleeves and get in the transportation problem solving that we're working with the community most affected who live day to day with some of the issues, but the idea of community is pretty big. operating transit, it's residents who live near the traffic and transit issue. it's our partner agencies who deal with transportation if the employers and employee -- need to get back and forth to work. it's obviously the clients that are hoping that their proposal are better and the quality of life in san francisco fits all of that. so, we also know that getting
3:54 pm
out ahead of the problem means getting out ahead of environmental review. it would be a real disadvantage for us at mta. if we were trying to come up with solutions to transportation problems while an e-i-r is thumping along at a quick pace, doing the assessment before the e-i-r has start today begin, there is a huge opportunity and i hope it becomes a role model for how we do big projects in the future. one of the things i'm open to do with this assessment is identify schorr term and long term gaps. there is a lot already going on. but is it going on in concert with the development proposals? * the transportation assessments in the books lining up in time for the transportation challenges we've got? and finally, are we being smart as a city in leveraging what's happening so that we can get much more than what we could have if we just treated it project by project by project? but instead put them together in one big network and say, working together we can do so much more than the individual projects could themselves.
3:55 pm
so, the image you have on the screen now would handicap what we're going to talk about doing. the white area, the gray area was our initial attempt to find broader than just pier 30-32. what became clear to us is those facilities outside the boundary that we're now folding into the study, the parking facilities, the ramps to the freeway, pier 70 and all that is going on around there, we're rolling out our study area to include what is happening around pier 70, the seawall lot 337 mission project near the giants ballpark. and seawall lot 330 and piers 30-32, we're also looking at also the land use changes and the transportation investments in the broader area. we're also not starting from scratch. i worked very closely with america's cup. the people's plan was a product of a lot of community input and a lot of those concerns and issues came right out of the same area of the waterfront we're talking about now. because that was so recently gathered, that input, that became a great foundation for
3:56 pm
us to say, hey, if you've already spent some of those 260 meetings we had in the last two years in the america's cup, your thoughts, your comments weren't wasted on us. we recorded them, actually color-coded them to make sure i took track of what we heard in the beginning of 2010, what we heard in 2011, what we heard in 2012. these are actually online. hosted by wed's website. there are pages and pages of community input about transit, about pedestrian safety, about accessibility, about employers worried about their employees getting to work. and we also wanted to make sure that we had comments resolved in time because we had a great experience with the america's cup. and ware going to have more experiences with the america's cup. last year was the first test of what is going to be more sustained series of events next summer. but it was an opportunity for us to pilot things that we heard from the community that we as agencies ourselves wanted to do. the idea of bike sharing. we know bike sharing will come out in spring.
3:57 pm
but park wide, the rental company to get our hands on spictiontion sharing experience, put it out there at the marina green and see how we could get people comfortable with this option. we tested the e line, historic streetcar and the waterfront from mission bay to fisherman's wharf. it is a streetcar with challenges to operate but we know what the challenges are and meeting with the engineers with the nta to figure out how we can sustain the e line not just for special event but for round the clock service. we also paid attention to details like pedestrian safety, way finding, helping visitors find their way around the waterfront. a quick fix, stapling a few signs to a post, but what was so important about that, we used real time information that gave people choices that if they were to walk from the ferry building to the ballpark or from the ferry building to marina green, we could get them time options and show them where milestones were along the way. we also did the same with the bicycle network as our bike network expands. and with that we knew we were
3:58 pm
starting from -- with the community, a lot of the people already worked with us to roll our sleeves up and say let's get beyond america's cup event planning and talk about long-term fixes. what do we know that needs to happen in all the different modal networks, what are the timing of major projects coming and are they linked well to the transportation investments that are in the books? and are they -- are we able to get ahead of the ceqa process so we could identify solutions that make a lot of sense even while ceqa is starting to trend in its analysis? by laying out those parameters we sat down into break out sessions. we had six of them. we went through a lot of exercises using the strength of people in the neighborhood knew of the issues. they marked out maps, told us their top six concerns. six groups, six concerns. we had a few that overlapped. we had a range of fib use, pedestrian, transit, parking, traffic, for people who don't care about ball games but just want to get in and out of their garages. report back structure, we summarized the feedback and now
3:59 pm
what we're doing is pointing to a lot of work ahead of us. let me sort of show you an overview of some of the basics. these maps were really helpful. it is the first time i think we layered so much richness on one simple map. for instance, the transit map shows existing and proposed transit investments. existing [speaker not understood], central subway, the caltrain extension into downtown, the local and regional networks. it's hard to real read it to scale, but people were willing to mark them up. the pedestrian network used the grid, but it also used the abag bay trail. it also used corridors that were working specifically on second interest and market street, knowing there are concerns with investment * . working with cac, jamie whit can hererctiontion, gave me a richness with pedestrian safety has only helped us. bicycle network, again, existing what's proposed.

November 22, 2012 3:30pm-4:00pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY San Francisco 9, Wiener 5, America 5, Mr. Cohen 3, City 3, Mta 3, Us 2, The City 2, Jane Kim 2, Tim Cohen 2, Craig 2, Chiu 2, Mr. Evans 2, Lisa 1, Ag 1, Gail Gilman 1, Mar 1, Marina 1, Jen Matts 1, Piers 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color